Posted on 08/07/2004 9:38:57 AM PDT by TruthNtegrity
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A Pakistani computer expert linked to U.S. security alerts and the arrest of 11 terrorism suspects in Britain was part of an undercover sting operation before Washington revealed his name, a Pakistani intelligence source and British media reports said yesterday.
U.S. officials revealed the name of captured al Qaeda suspect Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan while he was still cooperating with Pakistani authorities in a sting operation, an intelligence source told Reuters news agency.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Khan e-mailed comrades Sunday and Monday as part of the Pakistani operation against Osama bin Laden's network, the source said.
But his name appeared in the New York Times on Monday after anonymous briefings by U.S. officials, determined to present a public justification for security alerts that caused widespread disruption in New York and other cities.
Go slow on this one. The UK media is Reuters which is fundamentally anti-American.
The NY Times article (available on another thread) suggests the leak came from Pakistan.
NYTimes published the name after some US official couldn't keep his mouth shut.
Pakistani and British officials (in other reports) were furious that the name had been released/published, because they were -- until then --- getting valuable information from the guy. Once his name was published and the rest of al-Qaeda knew he had been caught, they scurried.
[Similar pattern to when Orin Hatch sped to the nearest open microphone shortly after 9-11-01 to announce to the world that the Pentagon were tracking OBL via his cell phone.]
"After his capture, he admitted being an al Qaeda member and agreed to send e-mails to his contacts," the source said.
"He sent encoded e-mails and received encoded replies. He's a great hacker and even the U.S. agents said he was a computer whiz."
So, we have him in custody, he's sending emails so we can find out where his buddies or higher-ups are, and there's an "anonymous briefing", to justify the raising of the threat level, during which information is given out and then LEAKED by the New York Times? I get it. The New York Times is NOT on our side.
BUMP!
NYT are one of our most vile enemies within.
How about supplying the URL for the "other thread".
I'd like to read it. Thanks.
TNT
U.S. Accuses British Man of Terrorist Conspiracy (Had plans of classified Naval group movements )
Further note from the article:
Babar Ahmad, a 30-year-old college employee arrested by British authorities Thursday, was described as a cousin of suspected Al Qaeda member Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan — whose recent arrest in Pakistan triggered a spate of terrorism alerts last weekend in New York, New Jersey and Washington.
Thanks.
Almost as vile as the "anonymous officials" who gave them the info.
I urge people to copy this and save for additional posting to Times-related threads.
Incredible.
Incredible.
Isn't it? He said this in conversation with his own father, an ex-Marine officer. Pinch told his friends it was "the stupidest question" he was ever asked.
Why not save the quote and post it on other Times-related threads?
I'd like to see the original source first.
"In "The Trust," authors Susan Tifft and Alex S. Jones tell of a confrontation over the war that took place between its young publisher to be, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., and his father, Arthur "Punch" Sulzberger.
The father had rushed up to Boston after his son, then a student, had gotten arrested in an antiwar demonstration. The authors recount how the two had dinner at Locke-Ober and then, "slightly tipsy," took a stroll around Boston Common. There, say Ms. Tifft and Mr. Jones, Punch asked his son this question: "If a young American soldier comes upon a North Vietnamese soldier, which do you want to see get shot?"
"I would want to see the American get shot," the young publisher-to-be replied defiantly, according to Ms. Tifft and Mr. Jones.
"It's the other guy's country; we shouldn't be there," the younger Mr. Sulzberger had said by way of explanation. The authors describe Arthur Jr.'s answer as "calculatedly provocative." "To Punch," write Ms. Tifft and Mr. Jones, "such sentiments bordered on treason, and he exploded in anger." They say that the younger Mr. Sulzberger would later characterize his father's query as "the dumbest question I've ever heard in my life" and his own reply as "the dumbest answer."
Way to go, Mr. Mort.
They say that the younger Mr. Sulzberger would later characterize his father's query as "the dumbest question I've ever heard in my life" and his own reply as "the dumbest answer."
Sounds like a retraction, without actually retracting.
The father would had a better question if he asked his son "who would you rather be shot, the North Vietnamese soldier or the South Vietnamese soldier?".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.